←back to thread

A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

(www.science.org)
322 points atomroflbomber | 8 comments | 03 Aug 23 08:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.452s | source | bottom
Show context
lelag ◴[03 Aug 23 09:52 UTC] No.36983601[source]▶
If 2023 ends up giving us AGI, room-temperature superconductors, Starships and a cure for cancer, I think we will able to call it a good year...
replies(10): >>36983623 #>>36984116 #>>36984118 #>>36984549 #>>36986942 #>>36987008 #>>36987250 #>>36987546 #>>36987577 #>>36992261 #
nelox ◴[03 Aug 23 11:55 UTC] No.36984549[source]▶
It is probably too late with record high temperatures, every few years, for centuries to come.
replies(4): >>36984755 #>>36984961 #>>36986278 #>>36987467 #
BurningFrog ◴[03 Aug 23 15:46 UTC] No.36987467[source]▶
Temperatures can be lowered by pumping SO2 into the stratosphere. The effects are well understood.

The practical details should be figured out in a decade or so. The political side may be harder.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/07/su...

replies(1): >>36987832 #
1. SketchySeaBeast ◴[03 Aug 23 16:11 UTC] No.36987832[source]▶
> The effects are well understood.

Are they all understood? Sure, it seems like a rational suggestion, and we know that if we add it to the atmosphere it should cool, but what other effects will it cause? How many times have we tried this trick where we introduce something new to an environment and it doesn't turn out like we'd like it to? Feels like we're hoping to apply a band-aid but not deal with the wound.

replies(2): >>36987886 #>>36988061 #
2. luma ◴[03 Aug 23 16:15 UTC] No.36987886[source]▶
Cool, then what practical solution do you propose? Wait around while things get worse?
replies(1): >>36987990 #
3. SketchySeaBeast ◴[03 Aug 23 16:24 UTC] No.36987990[source]▶
Well, that's not much of a rebuttal of concerns, and as I'm not in the field I don't have suggestions.
4. BurningFrog ◴[03 Aug 23 16:29 UTC] No.36988061[source]▶
First of all, the SO2 goes into the stratosphere, not the atmosphere.

We know a lot about it because volcanoes do this occasionally. Temperatures cool down for about 2 years, which is how long it takes for the S02 to break down.

replies(1): >>36988671 #
5. SketchySeaBeast ◴[03 Aug 23 17:11 UTC] No.36988671[source]▶
> First of all, the SO2 goes into the stratosphere, not the atmosphere.

Considering that the stratosphere is part of the atmosphere, that's both pedantic and incorrect.

> We know a lot about it because volcanoes do this occasionally. Temperatures cool down for about 2 years, which is how long it takes for the S02 to break down.

Volcano's don't pump pure SO2. Yes, the science may be entirely valid, and it's not for me decide, but I think it warrants heavy consideration before we try to solve problems we're creating due to adding excess by adding additional excess.

replies(1): >>36992821 #
6. BurningFrog ◴[03 Aug 23 22:17 UTC] No.36992821{3}[source]▶
The distinction is important because at lower altitudes SO2 produces acid rain. But the stratosphere is far above the rain clouds.

NASA report on the Mount Pinatubo caused global cooling: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects...

replies(1): >>36999277 #
7. SketchySeaBeast ◴[04 Aug 23 12:52 UTC] No.36999277{4}[source]▶
Clarifying what part of the atmosphere is important, sure, to say it's not in the atmosphere and instead in the stratosphere is absolutely wrong.

Doesn't SO2 sink in air? Because we'll need to be constantly adding it to the atmosphere aren't we going to end up with acid rain as it falls to the ground?

replies(1): >>37004006 #
8. BurningFrog ◴[04 Aug 23 18:38 UTC] No.37004006{5}[source]▶
My impression is that there is some leakage, but very small compared to the acid rain problems of the past.

Either way, if acid rain is the price for controlling global warming, I think that is a very desirable trade-off!